Judgment This rule is directed against the Order dated 24th January, 1979 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Burwan in Misc. Appeal No. 147 of 1078 affirming the Order No. 7 dated 4th of July, 1978 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No. 115 of 1978. The said Title Suit No. 115 of 1978 was instated by the opposite party, Sri Jawarharlal Mukherjee challenging the legality and validity of the order of transfer passed by the Central Bank of India on 6th of March 1978. By the aforesaid order, the Burdwan Branch of Central Bank if India where Sri Muklerjee was acting at the relevant time, was directed by the regional office of the Central Bank of India at Calcutta that the said Sri Mukherjee should be released with instruction to report at Panagarh Bench of the said Bank and one Sri N.G. Malik, a clear attached to Panagarh Bench, would fill up the vacancy caused by the aforesaid transfer of said Sri Jawarharlal Mukherjee. In the said suit, the plaintiff Sri Jawarharlal Mukherjee also made an application for temporary injunction and the learned Munsif by the aforesaid order No. 7 dated 4th of July, 1978 allowed the said application for temporary injunction made by the said Sri Jawarharlal Mukherjee. As a result, the Bank was resulted from giving effect to the said order of transfer until the disposal of the said Title Suit No. 115 of 1978. It appears that the defendant Bank therefore preferred an appeal, being misc. Appeal No. 147 of 1978 and s aforesaid by order dated 24th of January, 1979, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Burdwan dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the order of injunction passed by the trial court. The defendants thereafter moved this revisional application before this court and the instant Rule was issued on such application. 2. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-petitioners in the instant Rule contended that the impugned order of transfer was not passed for victimizing the said employee Sri Jawaharlal Mukherjee and there is no allegation by the plaintiff Sri Mukherjee that the said order was passed malafide or for any collateral purpose. Mr. 2. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-petitioners in the instant Rule contended that the impugned order of transfer was not passed for victimizing the said employee Sri Jawaharlal Mukherjee and there is no allegation by the plaintiff Sri Mukherjee that the said order was passed malafide or for any collateral purpose. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that it will appear from the order of transfer itself that as the wife of the said employee Sri Mukherjee was also an employee in the very same Branch, the Bank Administration through it desirable to transfer Sri Mukherjee so that husband and wife do not work in the same Branch. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the said transfer was made on the basis of a policy decision taken by the Bank that near relations should not work in the same Branch. Mr. Mukherjee submitted what whether the said decision was wise or not, is not to be questioned by the court but the Bank Administration has the right to take such decision to the best of its judgment for the better administration of the banking business. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the said order of transfer was made to give effect to a policy decision taken by the Bank at the highest level and the Bank Administration thought that it would not be desirable in the interest of the Bank that two close relations should work in the same Branch. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that an employer is the best judge as to how he should distribute his employees between different jobs and unless the decision is patently malafide, the wisdom of such decision is not justiceable in a court of law. For this contention, Mr. Mukherjee referred to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court made in the case of (1) Shaw Wallace and Company Limited v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others, reported in 1970 Labour and Industrial Cases, page 90. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held in the said decision that employer is the best judge to decide as to how he will distribute his employees between different jobs. Mr. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held in the said decision that employer is the best judge to decide as to how he will distribute his employees between different jobs. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the transfer from one Branch to another Branch of the Bank is a condition of service of the employee and even in the Shastri Award so much relied on by the plaintiff and also by the courts below, it has been recognized that the Bank has a power to transfer the employees to different Branches. In this connection, Mr. Mukherjee drew the attention of the court to the relevant provision of Shastri Award which goes to the effect that in general, the policy should be to limit the transfers to the minimum consistent with banking needs and efficiency. It was also directed in the said Award that in the case of workman not belonging to the subordinate staff, as far as possible there should be no transfer outside the State of the language areas in which an employee has been serving except of course with his consent. In all cases the number of transfers to which a workman is subject should be strictly limited and normally it should not be more than once in a year. Mr. Mukherjee contended that it is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff is not a member of the subordinate staff but a workman of the bank and no order of transfer has been effected on the said employee within the course of a year. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that on the face of the said Shastri Award which was relied on by the plaintiff and also relied on by the Courts below in passing the order of injunction, it is quite evident and apparent that the Bank has a right to effect transfer of a workman. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the court of appeal below did not consider at all the case of the defendants that the Bank Administration had power to transfer its employees to different branches and such exercise of power was not inconsistent with the Shastri Award. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the court of appeal below did not consider at all the case of the defendants that the Bank Administration had power to transfer its employees to different branches and such exercise of power was not inconsistent with the Shastri Award. He submitted that the court of appeal below did not decide the said contention of the defendants that the Bank had power to transfer its employees but without such consideration it upheld the order of interim injunction on an utterly erroneous view that the directive of the Bank that near relations should not work in one branch did not find place in the printed book when such printed book was prima facie binding on the plaintiff. Mr. Mukherjee drew the attention of this Court of the relevant portion of the judgment of the court of appeal which runs to the following effect :–– "Assuming that the appellant has a right to transfer the employee, still the directive of the letter––Annexure A and Annexure 2 having not found place in the printed book that is prima facie not binding on the plaintiff". In this connection Mr. Mukherjee referred to a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (2) Canara Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Vittal, reported in (1963) 3 SCR at page 268. Over a transfer of a Bank employee of the Canara Banking Corporation Limited, an industrial dispute arose and the question arose as to whether by the Shastri Award the transfer of an employee or more precisely the transfer of a workman not belonging to the subordinate staff could be made or not. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Shastri Award makes a distinction between the workmen belonging to the subordinate staff and others. While there was absolute prohibition against the transfer of the subordinate staff from their language area, there was no such absolute prohibition with regard to other language area, there was no such absolute prohibition with regard to other workmen. The Shastri Award had laid down that "as far as possible" the other workmen were not to be transferred outside their language area but that left discretion with the Banks to transfer employee of the category of workmen if the best interests of the Bank so required. It was for the Bank to decide how to distribute its man power in its best interests. It was for the Bank to decide how to distribute its man power in its best interests. Relying on the said decision of the Supreme Court, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the Shastri Award since relied on by the Courts below was taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in the matter of a transfer of an employee and it was held by the Supreme Court categorically that under the said Shastri Award, the Bank was the best judge to decide who should be transferred in the interests of the Bank and there was no prohibition of transferring a workman under the Shastri Award. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that this very basic question of Bank’s power to transfer its employees was not considered by the Court of appeal below, and as such there has been material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court of Appeal below and for such material irregularity interference in revision is called for. 3. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposite party submitted that the said Shastri Award has a force of law and no order of transfer can be made which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Shastri Award. Mr. Chatterjee in his fairness submitted that it cannot be contended that under the Shastri Award, a Bank has been prohibited from passing any order of transfer on the workmen but he submitted that the order of transfer must be consistent with the provisions of the Shastri Award. He submitted that it was directed in the Shastri Award, that the general policy of transfer should be to limit the transfers to the minimum consistent with banking needs and efficiency. Mr. Chatterjee contended that in the order of transfer, it was not stated that the said transfer was effected for banking needs or to promote efficiency of the Banking Administration. He further submitted that it is quite apparent and evident from the order of transfer itself that because the wife of the employee concerned had been working in the same branch, the plaintiff was transferred from the Burdwan Branch to Panagar Branch. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that so long it is not established by the Banking Administration that the order of transfer was made consistent with the Banking needs and efficiency, such order of transfer cannot be made simply because a close relation of an employee was also working in the same Branch. Mr. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that so long it is not established by the Banking Administration that the order of transfer was made consistent with the Banking needs and efficiency, such order of transfer cannot be made simply because a close relation of an employee was also working in the same Branch. Mr. Chatterjee contended that a bound volume was produced at the hearing by the Banking Administration containing different circulars relating to the service condition of the employees but the circular relied on by the Banking administration for giving the impugned order of transfer on the score of close relations working in the same branch did not find place in the said bound book and the learned Judge was quite justified in not placing reliance on the said circular. Mr. Chatterjee also contended that, in any event, even if it is assumed that the learned Judge had made an erroneous decision such erroneous decision cannot be interfered with in the Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C. For this contention, Mr. Chatterjee referred to a few decisions of the Supreme Court. One of such decisions was made in the case of (3) Manindra Land & Building Corporation v. Bhutnath Banerjee reported in AIR 1964 SC at page 1336. It was held in the said decision that it is not open to the High Court in the exercise of power under Section 115 to question the finding of fact recorded by a subordinate Court. Section 115 C.P. Code applies to cases involving question of jurisdiction but it is not directed against conclusion of law or fact in which questions of jurisdiction is not involved. In the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (4) M. S. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, reported in AIR 1972 SC at page 2379, a similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the decision made in the case of (5) Hindusthan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad, reported in AIR 1973 SC at page 776. Relying on the said decision, Mr. Chatterjee contended that the Court has jurisdiction to decide the application for interim injunction and the court gave the parties opportunities of being heard and came to a finding that in the absence of circulars being annexed to the bound book relied on by the Banking Administration, the plaintiff cannot be held to be bound by the said circular. Chatterjee contended that the Court has jurisdiction to decide the application for interim injunction and the court gave the parties opportunities of being heard and came to a finding that in the absence of circulars being annexed to the bound book relied on by the Banking Administration, the plaintiff cannot be held to be bound by the said circular. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that such finding of the court of appeal below may be erroneous findings but certainly the same was not without jurisdiction and as such no inference in Revision is called for. 4. In answer to aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Chatterjee, Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 115 of the C.P.C. is not attracted against any erroneous finding fact or law. He fairly submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the C.P.C. is limited to jurisdictional errors as referred to in clauses (a), (b), and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the C.P. Code. But Mr. Mukherjee drew the attention to the court of clause (c) of Section 115 (1) of the C.P. Code and submitted that if the court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, then an inference in revision is called for. For the true import of the expression contained in clause (c) of Section 115 (1) of the C.P. Code, Mr. Mukherjee referred to a Full Bench decision of the Nagpur High Court made in the case of (6) Narayan Sonaji v. Sheshrao Vithoba, reported in AIR 1948 Nagpur at page 258. Mr. Mukherjee drew the attention of this court to paragraphs 31 and 32 of the said decision wherein the order of reference to the Full Bench of the Nagpur High Court by Vivian Bose, J. (as His Lordship then was) was quoted. Referring to clause (c) of Section 115(1) of the C.P.C. Vivian Bose, J. held that the words "illegally and with material irregularity" did not cover either-errors of fact or of law and they did not refer to the decision arrived at but to manner in which it was reached. The errors contemplated relate to material defects of procedure and not to errors of either law or fact after the formalities which the law prescribes have been duly complied with both in letter and spirit. The errors contemplated relate to material defects of procedure and not to errors of either law or fact after the formalities which the law prescribes have been duly complied with both in letter and spirit. The aforesaid view of Vivian Bose, J. was quoted with the approval by the Supreme Court in the decision made in the case of (7) Keshardeo Chamaria v. Radhakishan Chamaria, reported in AIR 1953 SC at page 23 Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the defendants contended that the Bank Administration had power to effect transfer to an employee from one branch to another and such power was not limited by the Shastri Award. The Court of Appeal below did not at all apply its mind to the said contention of the defendants but affirmed the order of injunction passed by the trial court only on the view that as the circulars relied on by the Bank did not find place in the bound book produced at the hearing, the plaintiff could not be held to be bound by such circulars. Mr. Mukherjee contended that apart from the circulars, the Bank’s inherent power as an employer to effect transfer of its employee was required to be considered by the Court of Appeal below but such consideration was not made at all by the Court of Appeal below. Mr. Mukherjee contended that the court of appeal below has thus acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not considering the case of the defendants in its proper perspective. He submitted that if the defendant’s contentions were considered and the court of appeal had come to a finding, then such finding even if erroneous in fact or law, cannot be challenged in revision, but where the court of appeal below has not considered the case of the defendant in its proper perspective, interference in revision is called for. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the Supreme Court has interpreted the import of Shastri Award in the aforesaid decision of the Canara Banking Corporation, and it is now an established law that the Bank has power to transfer its employees and such power of transfer is not prohibited by the Shastri Award. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the Supreme Court has interpreted the import of Shastri Award in the aforesaid decision of the Canara Banking Corporation, and it is now an established law that the Bank has power to transfer its employees and such power of transfer is not prohibited by the Shastri Award. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the Bank Administration thought it desirable that two close relations should not work in one branch and even assuming that there was no wisdom in such decision, it cannot be held that an employer Bank cannot effect transfer when the employer Bank feels in its wisdom that in the interest of the Bank two close relations should not work in one branch. 5. After considering the submissions made by the respective Counsel of the parties, I am inclined to accept the contention made by Mr. Mukherjee. It appears to me that no case of malafide has been made out by the plaintiff for passing the order of transfer against the plaintiff but the plaintiff only contended that in view of Shastri Award, such order of transfer could not be made. The Court of appeal below, in my view, failed to consider the case of the defendant that as an employer, the defendant had right to order for transfer of one employee from one branch to another and such order of transfer was not prohibited by the Shastri Award. The said contention was not considered by the court of appeal below but the court of appeal below affirmed the order of injunction simply on the finding that as the circular containing the direction that two employees should not work in one branch did not find place in the bound book, the plaintiff could not be held to be bound by such circular. This Rule, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside and the application for injunction is dismissed but I make no order as to costs. 6. As the suit is pending adjudication I make it expressly clear that the observation made by this Court must be held to be only a tentative observation for the purpose of disposal of the injunction application and the trial court will dispose of the suit in accordance with law. 7. In the facts of the case, let the hearing of the suit be expedited. 8. 7. In the facts of the case, let the hearing of the suit be expedited. 8. Let the records be sent down to the trial court as expeditiously as possible. 9. It may be noted in this connection that the hearing of this Rule was adjourned from time to time because the plaintiff opposite party submitted that without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the suit and in this Rule the Bank Administration should try to find out a suitable place so that the plaintiff and his wife may attend their respective place of work from their marital home at Burdwan without causing any embarrassment to the Bank Administration. The Bank Administration submitted before this court that it had no intention to disturb the marital home of the plaintiff and/or his wife because both re employees of the bank and the Banking Administration will be only happy to see that the marital home is least disturbed. Unfortunately until now the parties could not find out any such suitable place acceptable to both the parties. This Court reasonably expects that the Banking Administration should give further anxious consideration in the matter of transfer of the plaintiff and try, if possible, to find out how best the plaintiff and his wife can be accommodated in branches close to their marital home so that their marital home is least disturbed and both of them can attend their respective offices from such home.